Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 20STCV21141, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling
*** Please Note that the Judicial Officer Presiding in Department 25 is Commissioner Latrice A. G. Byrdsong ***
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.
Case Number: 20STCV21141 Hearing Date: June 4, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024
Case Name: RAYMOND
HILL vs. KHACHATUR MKRTUMYAN; LUSINE MKRTUMYAN; SASUN MKRTUMYAN; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive
Case No.: 20STCV21141
Motion: Motion to Re-Classify Case as an
Unlimited Jurisdiction Action
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Raymond Hill
Responding Party: Unopposed
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motion to Re-Classify
Case as an Unlimited Jurisdiction Action is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
This
action arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on December 15,
2019. On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff Raymond Hill (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint
against Defendants Khachatur Mkrtumyan, Lusine Mkrtumyan, and Sasun Mkrtumyan
(collectively “Defendants”) and DOES 1 to 50 alleging causes of action for: (1)
Motor Vehicle; and (2) General Negligence.
On July
21, 2020, Defendants filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.
On
February 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint, which identified
Gohar Grigoryan as Doe 1.
On
September 18, 2023, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Court
entered an order: (1) reclassifying this action as a limited jurisdiction case;
(2) indicating that the parties agree that CCP § 94 will be retroactive and
apply to the entirety of the matter; (3) stating that the parties agree that
Plaintiff will pay any fees involved in the transfer from unlimited to limited;
(4) indicating that the parties agree that any expert deposition shall be at
least 15 days prior to the new trial date; and (5) vacating all pending hearing
and/or trial dates. (09/18/23 Order.)
On
September 27, 2023, a Clerk’s Notice of Reclassification was mailed to the
parties indicating that this matter was reclassified from civil unlimited to
civil limited jurisdiction.
Also, on
September 27, 2023, this action was reassigned from the Honorable Steven A.
Ellis to the Honorable Katherine Chilton sitting in Department 25 at Spring
Street Courthouse effective September 25, 2023.
On
November 9, 2023, pursuant to an Order of Dismissal, the Court dismissed
Defendant Gohar Grigoryan from this action without prejudice.
Also, on
November 9, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing that Commissioner
Latrice A.G. Byrdsong, sitting as a Temporary Judge, would hear and decide all
present and future matters, including post judgment proceedings, throughout the
pendency of this case.
On
February 26, 2024, this matter was called for jury trial and, pursuant to
Plaintiff’s ex parte request to continue trial, which was granted,
the Court continued trial to May 6, 2024. (02/26/24 Minute Order.)
On
April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the instant unopposed Motion to
Re-Classify Case as an Unlimited Jurisdiction Action. Plaintiff’s motion is
made on the grounds that this case was improperly and erroneously reclassified
as a limited case through a stipulation by both parties’ counsels in August of
2023. Plaintiff indicates that his “counsel filed this action as an unlimited
civil case when the severity and extent of [his] injuries are such that this
should have been an unlimited case.” (Notice of Motion at p. 2:2-4.)
On
May 6, 2024, this matter was called for trial and, pursuant to Plaintiff’s
request for a continuance due to the unavailability of an adjuster, the Court
continued jury trial to May 14, 2024. (05/06/24 Minute Order.)
On
May 14, 2024, this matter was called for jury trial and the parties announced
ready for trial. (05/14/24 Minute Order.) The Court signed a trial transfer
order and referred the matter to Department 1 for trial assignment. (05/14/24
Minute Order.) Department 1 informed the Court that there were no trial
assignments available. (05/14/24 Minute Order.) The Court, on its own motion,
continued jury trial to May 28, 2024. (05/14/24 Minute Order.)
On
May 28, 2024, this matter was called for jury trial and the parties announced
ready to proceed for trial. (05/28/24 Minute Order.) The Court signed a
trial transfer order and referred the matter to Department 1 for trial
assignment. (05/28/24 Minute Order.) Department 1 informed the Court that there
were no trial assignments available. (05/28/24 Minute Order.) The Court, on its
own motion, continued jury trial to July 15, 2024. (05/28/24 Minute Order.)
MOVING PARTY
POSITION
Plaintiff
argues that accompanying his motion are his current medical records and billing
for treatment arising from the incident which is the subject matter of this
action, and such past medical billings show that the providers have billed
$31,237.00 for treatment that Plaintiff received, and all amounts are
outstanding and unpaid to date. Plaintiff argues that he alleges that he
suffered a personal injury and is also claiming damages for loss of earnings,
special damages, incidental, and general damages. Additionally, Plaintiff
contends that he has undergone several more treatments for his cervical and
lumbar spine injuries. Plaintiff asserts that he pursued this motion diligently
and the motion was filed at its first opportunity.
No
opposition brief filed as of June 3, 2024.
REPLY
No reply
brief filed as of June 3, 2024.
ANALYSIS
I. Reclassification
A.
Legal Standard
“The plaintiff . . . may file a motion
for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to amend the
initial pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) “The court, on its
own motion, may reclassify a case at any time.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040,
subd. (a).) “A motion for reclassification does not extend the moving party’s
time to amend . . . or otherwise respond.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd.
(a).) Where a motion for reclassification is filed after the time for a party
to amend its initial pleading, “the court shall grant the motion and enter an
order for reclassification only if both of the following conditions are
satisfied: (1) The case is incorrectly classified. (2) The moving party shows
good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
403.040, subd. (b)(1)-(2).)
“[A] civil case in which the damages
claimed are less than $25,000 or less is a limited civil case.” AP-Colton
LLC v. Ohaeri (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 500, 505. “In a limited civil action,
the judgment cannot exceed $25,000.” Ibid. “For reclassification of a
case from a limited civil case to an unlimited civil case, a fee shall be
charged as provided in Section 70619 of the Government Code. This
reclassification fee shall be in addition to any other fee due for that
appearance or filing in a limited civil case.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.060,
subd. (a).) “The fee for reclassification of a case from a limited civil case
to an unlimited civil case under Section 403.060 of the Code of Civil Procedure
is one hundred forty dollars ($140).” (Gov. Code § 70619.)
“[A] matter may be reclassified as a
limited civil action when (i) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before
trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (ii) during the
course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will
necessarily result in a verdict below the superior court’s jurisdictional
amount.” Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005)129 Cal.App.4th 266, 276, internal
quotations omitted, emphasis in original. “[T]he test [is] . . . whether
lack of jurisdiction is clear . . . [or] virtually unattainable.” Id. at p.
277, citation omitted, internal quotations omitted. “This standard involves
an evaluation of the amount fairly in controversy, not an adjudication of the
merits of the claim, and . . . requires a high level of certainty that [the]
damage award will not exceed $25,000.” Ibid. “The [trial] court may
believe it highly unlikely that plaintiff will recover the amount demanded, but
this is not enough to defeat jurisdiction, unless it appears to a legal
certainty that plaintiff cannot recover the amount [of the] demand[].” Ibid.
“[T]he superior court must deny the motion to reclassify the case as limited
(and thus keep the matter in the unlimited civil court) unless it appears to a
legal certainty that the plaintiff’s damages will necessarily be less than
$25,000.” Ibid.
Effective January 1, 2024, a limited
civil action is an action where the amount in controversy does not exceed
$35,000. (Code Civ. Proc., § 85, subd. (a).) “A civil action or proceeding
other than a limited civil case may be referred to as an unlimited civil case.”
(Code Civ. Proc. § 88.)
B. Discussion
Initially, the Court notes that the
sole exhibit attached to the declaration of Alexander J. Zeesman (“Zeesman”) in
support of the motion is a copy of the Court’s Notice of Reclassification.
(Zeesman Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Thus, Plaintiff’s argument that his evidence
shows billed medical expenses totaling $31,237.00 is incorrect as no medical
bills or invoices are attached to the declaration of Mr. Zeesman in support of
the motion.
Mr. Zeesman declares the following: on
August 23, 2023, counsel for Defendants e-mailed Plaintiff’s counsel for the
reclassification. (Zeesman Decl., ¶ 2.) A series of exchanges were made, and
the parties ultimately submitted a stipulation to reclassify this present case
as limited jurisdiction. (Zeesman Decl., ¶ 2.) On September 27, 2023, the Court
issued a Notice of Reclassification. (Zeesman Decl., ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Due to the
increasing medical expenses including the costs for experts, the jurisdictional
amount exceeded that for limited jurisdiction thus warranting reclassification.
(Zeesman Decl., ¶ 4.) On February 17, 2024, the parties’ counsel discussed the
matter of an expert’s deposition and Defendants expressed their unwillingness
to reclassify this case and stated they would oppose any motion to that effect.
(Zeesman Decl., ¶ 5.)
Given that Plaintiff’s motion is
unopposed, the Court finds that Defendants have conceded to Plaintiff’s
arguments because “[c]ontentions are waived when a party fails to support them
with reasoned argument and citations to authority.” Moulton Niguel Water
Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.
Irrespective of such fact, the Court
finds that reclassification is inappropriate. Plaintiff’s counsel merely
declares in a conclusory manner that Plaintiff’s increasing medical expenses
warrant reclassification because the jurisdictional limit is now exceeded for a
limited civil jurisdiction action. Plaintiff argues that he has been billed
medical expenses in the sum of $31,237.00. Memorandum of Points and
Authorities at p. 4:17-19. Plaintiff, however, has not presented evidence
that his medical expenses will exceed the limited jurisdiction limits of
$35,000.00. Moreover, Plaintiff has not set forth good cause for not seeking
reclassification earlier. Plaintiff does not indicate when the need for
reclassification was discovered or why it took Plaintiff until after this
matter was called for trial to seek reclassification.
Exercising its discretion, Plaintiff’s
motion to reclassify this action from limited jurisdiction to unlimited
jurisdiction is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
II. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for
reclassification of Action from the Limited Jurisdiction to the Unlimited
Jurisdiction Court is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The moving party is ordered
to give notice and to attach a copy of the Court's Tentative Ruling, as an
exhibit to said notice, as the order of the Court.